153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10455204)
1. Observer variation in cytologic grading for cervical dysplasia of Papanicolaou smears with the PAPNET testing system.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; van den Tweel JG
Cancer; 1999 Aug; 87(4):178-83. PubMed ID: 10455204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. PAPNET testing for HSILs. The few cell/small cell challenge.
Solomon HM; Frist S
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):253-9. PubMed ID: 9479348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears.
Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Negative cervical smears before CIN 3/carcinoma. Reevaluation with the PAPNET Testing System.
Doornewaard H; van de Seijp H; Woudt JM; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):74-8. PubMed ID: 9022729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Rescreen effect in conventional and PAPNET screening: observed in a study using material enriched with positive smears.
van Ballegooijen M; Beck S; Boon ME; Boer R; Habbema JD
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(5):1133-8. PubMed ID: 9755670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. A comparison.
Mango LJ; Valente PT
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 9479345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG
Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Differences between false-negative and true-positive Papanicolaou smears on Papnet-assisted review.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Aug; 19(2):138-40. PubMed ID: 9702494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of PAPNET testing as an ancillary tool to clarify the status of the "atypical" cervical smear.
Sherman ME; Schiffman MH; Mango LJ; Kelly D; Acosta D; Cason Z; Elgert P; Zaleski S; Scott DR; Kurman RJ; Stoler M; Lorincz AT
Mod Pathol; 1997 Jun; 10(6):564-71. PubMed ID: 9195573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Consistency of a double PAPNET scan of cervical smears.
Jenny J; Isenegger I; Boon ME; Husain OA
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):82-7. PubMed ID: 9022731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma.
Sherman ME; Mango LJ; Kelly D; Paull G; Ludin V; Copeland C; Solomon D; Schiffman MH
Mod Pathol; 1994 Jun; 7(5):578-81. PubMed ID: 7937724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prospective and randomised public-health trial on neural network-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: results of the first year.
Nieminen P; Hakama M; Viikki M; Tarkkanen J; Anttila A
Int J Cancer; 2003 Jan; 103(3):422-6. PubMed ID: 12471627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience.
Brotzman GL; Kretzchmar S; Ferguson D; Gottlieb M; Stowe C
Arch Fam Med; 1999; 8(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 9932072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the PAPNET system in a general pathology service.
Farnsworth A; Chambers FM; Goldschmidt CS
Med J Aust; 1996 Oct; 165(8):429-31. PubMed ID: 8913244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. PAPNET. The human and other dimensions.
Husain OA; Kocjan G; Butler EB; McGloin JE
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(5):1439-44. PubMed ID: 9305381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
Sherman ME; Schiffman M; Herrero R; Kelly D; Bratti C; Mango LJ; Alfaro M; Hutchinson ML; Mena F; Hildesheim A; Morales J; Greenberg MD; Balmaceda I; Lorincz AT
Cancer; 1998 Oct; 84(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 9801201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. PRISMATIC Project Management Team.
Lancet; 1999 Apr; 353(9162):1381-5. PubMed ID: 10227217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25,656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening.
Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
Cytopathology; 1999 Oct; 10(5):317-23. PubMed ID: 10588350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
